it was the Tibetans inability to modernise and evolve to a modern country that brought the loss. It is so easy to pin the blame on Je Pabongka, I mean can't get freedom for Tibet, just blame it on Pabongka how convenient.
The occupation of Tibet was brought about by a number of causes- such a large event usually is. To say that there is only one cause for such a huge event is rather naieve. Karma is so complex that only a Buddha can penetrate it completely. Can we dismiss the failure of construction of Guru Rinpoche statues as a contributing factor? I don't think so- even though my mind does not really work that way the lamas can see how things function on a spiritual level in a way that I can't.
We cannot deny the role that sectarianism played in dividing the population and making it vulnerable. But at the same time there were many other factors that played a role. One major one, at least a major condition, which I am surprised you didn't mention, is the communist ideology of the Chinese government and military- one that swept through the county and led to occupation and persecution not just in Tibet but also in ethnic Mongolian (Inner Mongolia) and Uighur (Muslim) areas. Or the countless Chinese citizens who were persecuted during the Cultural Revolution and can still be thrown in jail for questioning the regime.
Malcolm once said "Blaming the Tibetans for the occupation of their country is like blaming a woman for getting raped." At the time I was taken aback and found the statement rather extreme, but upon reflection it actually makes sense.
If a woman goes to a parking garage alone in a dangerous neighbourhood late at night wearing revealing clothing, is she taking risks? Certainly. If she were to be assaulted would we say it was her fault? Of course not. Because to say so would be deeply insensitive and callous, showing no compassion for the violence she suffered.
Same with the Tibetan situation. Great violence has been done to them as a people. Was their society plagued with problems? Certainly- but so were many societies in the period of the 1950s.
I have known Tibetans for nearly 18 years and worked with them on a neatly daily basis for the better part of the last 9 years. They can be a frustrating people in many ways. But they also have carried the complete synthesis of Sutra and Tantra through to the modern period. They have endured suffering that us urban dwellers sitting in comfortable apartments with our laptops in Amsterdam, Kuala Lumpur or Los Angeles could never imagine. I have heard directly from the Tibetans, in their own language, about the violence they have endured. I have seen the bullet scars on the skin of several of my friends when we went swimming one time near Dharamsala (they never said anything, I had to ask).
So forgive me if it is difficult to have an unemotional, "logical" discussion about why the Tibetans are at fault for the violence that resulted in the loss of their homeland and endangerment to their culture. I would find it equally distasteful if we were to have the same endless conversation on the board for months on end faultfinding about the native people in Canada, the Khmer Krom in Vietnam, the descendants of Black slaves in America, the Armenians or the Kurds in Turkey.
No matter how violent or "feudal" such cultures may have been historically, no one would dare to say it was "their fault" for the occupation, enslavement and loss of freedom of those populations. Yet somehow, in modern academic and liberal discourse, it is okay to do this with the Tibetans. I don't get it.